Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
Glyn Elwyn,Annette M. O'Connor,Dawn Stacey,Robert J. Volk,Adrian Edwards,Angela Coulter,Richard Thomson,Alexandra Barratt,Michael J. Barry,Steven J. Bernstein,Phyllis Butow,Aileen Clarke,Vikki Entwistle,Deb Feldman-Stewart,Margaret Holmes-Rovner,Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas,Nora Moumjid,Albert G. Mulley,Cornelia M. Ruland,Karen Sepucha,Alan Sykes,Timothy J. Whelan +21 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained, and developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality.Abstract:
Objective To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids).
Design and setting Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration.
Participants Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains ona1to9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones.
Main outcome measure Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained.
Results 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8).
Conclusions Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Dawn Stacey,Dawn Stacey,Krystina B. Lewis,Michael J. Barry,Carol Bennett,Karen Eden,Margaret Holmes-Rovner,Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas,Anne Lyddiatt,Richard Thomson,Lyndal Trevena +10 more
TL;DR: Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.
Journal ArticleDOI
Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: Update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions
TL;DR: This systematic review update confirms the results of the original review on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals.
Book
Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis
TL;DR: A committee of experts to examine the quality of cancer care in the United States and formulate recommendations for improvement presents the committee’s findings and recommendations.
Journal ArticleDOI
American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 2010
Andrew M.D. Wolf,Richard C. Wender,Ruth B. Etzioni,Ian M. Thompson,Anthony V. D'Amico,Robert J. Volk,Durado Brooks,Chiranjeev Dash,Idris Guessous,Idris Guessous,Idris Guessous,Kimberly S. Andrews,Carol DeSantis,Robert A. Smith +13 more
TL;DR: It is recommended that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10‐year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after they receive information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening.
Journal ArticleDOI
Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions
Karine Gravel,Ian D. Graham +1 more
TL;DR: It is revealed that interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a broad range of factors, and that on this subject there is very little known about any health professionals others than physicians.
References
More filters
Book
Practical Nonparametric Statistics
TL;DR: Probability Theory. Statistical Inference. Contingency Tables. Appendix Tables. Answers to Odd-Numbered Exercises and Answers to Answers to Answer Questions as discussed by the authors.
Posted Content
Choices, Values, and Frames
Daniel Kahneman,Amos Tversky +1 more
TL;DR: Prospect theory as mentioned in this paper is an alternative to the classical utility theory of choice, and has been used to explain many complex, real-world puzzles, such as the principles of legal compensation, the equity premium puzzle in financial markets, and the number of hours that New York cab drivers choose to drive on rainy days.
Book
Choices, Values, and Frames
Daniel Kahneman,Amos Tversky +1 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the cognitive and psychophysical determinants of choice in risky and risk- less contexts are discussed, and the relation between decision values and experience values is discussed, as well as an approach to risky choice that sketches an approach for decision making that can be seen as the acceptance of a gamble that can yield various outcomes with different probabilities.
Journal ArticleDOI
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Dawn Stacey,Dawn Stacey,Krystina B. Lewis,Michael J. Barry,Carol Bennett,Karen Eden,Margaret Holmes-Rovner,Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas,Anne Lyddiatt,Richard Thomson,Lyndal Trevena +10 more
TL;DR: Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.
Journal ArticleDOI
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
TL;DR: This report hopes this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.